rhino_list_saved_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contract (dict with 'files' and 'directory' keys) and pins the scanned path to D:/RhinoFiles, which is useful. However, it never explicitly states that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation that does not alter the document, leaving the safety profile implicit in the word 'List'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tightly organized: a front-loaded one-line purpose, then concise Args and Returns sections. Every part earns its place, and the return structure is valuable. The docstring-style formatting is slightly templated but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the core needs: what it lists, where, and what shape the result takes. Minor omissions such as whether subdirectories are scanned, which file extensions are included, and ordering/sorting behavior are not addressed, but these are low-stakes details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the schema to document. The description does add context via an 'Args' note explaining that the controller is a RhinoController instance, though this parameter does not appear in the schema and could mildly confuse an agent into expecting a callable argument.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List all files in the default RhinoFiles directory (D:/RhinoFiles)'. This is unambiguous and the resource (files on disk) is inherently distinct from siblings like rhino_list_objects (document geometry), rhino_layer_list, and rhino_block_list. However, it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rhino_open, rhino_save, or rhino_list_objects. The purpose line implies a use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned. With over 170 siblings, the lack of any routing guidance is a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.